"You say that Trullo - a council which never received acceptance in the universal Church, nor was confirmed by the Apostolic See, and so fails the tests of St. Irenaeus and St. Vincent of Lerins...blah blah blah"
Above assumes facts not in evidence.
1) Trullo received acceptance of all of the patriarchates except the West.
2) The Patriarchate of the West subsequently left the Church and re-established itself as "The [Roman] Catholic Church".
3) I'm not sure about this test of St. Irenaeus you speak of (please quote it or link me to it), but the Council in Trullo does meet the test of St. Vincent of Lerins as to universality and consent. And as it conflicts with no earlier council, it also meets the test of St. Vincent as to antiquity.
4) Nothing in the Tradition requires confirmation by any particular see. Such a requirement would be an absurdity because if this or that see should fall into heresy, such a requirement would mean everyone would have to follow along, "Willy Nilly". If that were so, there would be no need for the Vincentian Canon.
Now you speak of some council or other that you think the Orthodox do not accept but should accept. I think you said the III Council of Constantinople. According to my information III Constantinople was received by the Church as Ecumenical. There is nothing, however, in the acts of this council that requires anyone to believe that the Pope of Rome is infallible or that the Pope of Rome and his entire jurisdiction (the Patriarchate of the West), cannot fall into heresy. Just ask any member of the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht and that Old Catholic will tell you exactly the same thing.
No, the Eastern Churches subsequently left the Church and reestablished themselves as "The Orthodox Church".
I'm not sure about this test of St. Irenaeus you speak of (please quote it or link me to it)
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III, 3:2)
Nothing in the Tradition requires confirmation by any particular see.
Without whom [the Romans presiding in the seventh Council] a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (St. Nicephorus of Constantinople, Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25)
There is nothing, however, in the acts of this council that requires anyone to believe that the Pope of Rome is infallible or that the Pope of Rome and his entire jurisdiction (the Patriarchate of the West), cannot fall into heresy.
What do you think of what I quoted, then?
Just ask any member of the Old Catholic Church of Utrecht and that Old Catholic will tell you exactly the same thing.
Old Catholics will also tell me that it's okay to ordain women. Sorry, but I'll pass.